Yeah, and I'm the one yelled at by a chick here at work for trying to find a home for my cat, which we're giving away due to my kid's allergies.

We got him from the pound in the first place, and don't want to give him back because we like him and don't want to send him back to get placed with a possibly-weird owner, or get euthanized if he's there too long.

But I'm the bad guy because "I'm shirking my responsibility as a pet owner". I reminded her I could just shogun him in the head to fix our problem, and he wouldn't feel any pain.

ciberido:Theaetetus: Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.

That's an overgeneralization at best, though you do have a point.

Any time you have a Group B criticizing a common activity of Group A, many of the members of Group A will respond with defensive anger. You see this in so many Fark threads, whether the topic be abortion, eating meat, guns, homosexuality, or something else. And especially you will see a LOT of anger if prominent members of Group B act in ways which seem clearly hypocritical. Witness how people react, for example, when a prominent Conservative politician, known for anti-gay policies or rhetoric, is found out to have had a homosexual affair.

We don't like it when other people tell us our behavior is immoral. We get defensive and angry. And especially when the person condemning us is (or we believe them to be) hypocritical on that very issue.

Except that PETA's not actually being hypocritical here. And to further crush the analogy, the people criticizing PETA don't actually disagree with what they're doing. It'd be like finding out that the anti-gay politician secretly uses drugs, and then having a bunch of drug-users criticizing them. Or, even more aptly, like people who love eating meat and who fudge their tax deductions criticizing a vegan who cheats on their taxes.Hence why it's concern trolling: you disagree with the policy behind the organization, not this specific action... so being all "boo hoo, this specific action is awful!" is disingenuous.

FeatheredSun:Is this the thread where we magically turn peoples sickening disregard for their own animals into hate against the agency cleaning up after them?

No, this is the thread where people defend a villainous organization by misrepresenting and distorting the record of what that organization has done and has stated they intend to do.

But, you see, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric which makes people bemused and angry. The very name "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" sends the message that anyone who disagrees with their policies in the slightest is unethical. So you've insulted the rest of the world before even opening your mouth. And now here we have one of their defenders using the phrase "peoples sickening disregard for their own animals" to mean anyone who even owns a pet is "sickening" and devoid of compassion.

This why we hate you. And yes, in some cases things have progressed to utter hate. Because you and your ilk are sanctimonious, judgmental hypocrites. Even if your basic philosophy is one that others sympathize with, even admire, your combativeness turns potential allies into enemies. There is sadly, little room for compromise once people start describing the people they disagree with as "disgusting."

I fear we really are getting closer to the point where the animosity transforms into outright violence. I am reminded of anti-abortion activists who blow up medical clinics and shoot doctors in their own homes. Once you convince yourself that a fetus or a cat deserves the same rights as a human being, you've started down a path that is likely to lead you to shooting someone or blowing something up. Then even people who AGREE with you want to see you locked up. But long before you get to THAT point, you will reach a stage where people really do hate you. Not just oppose you, but downright hate you and all that you stand for.

So now would be a good time to take a step back and ask yourself how we got here, and is there not some less-offensive way to get your message across?

DROxINxTHExWIND:meanmutton: DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.

No, they don't. They euthanize at a VASTLY, indefensibly higher rate than any legitimate shelter.

I don't really have a dog in this fight (no pun intended) but that sounds like a bullshiat, made-up, unsupported statistic.

"The definition of slavery does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on the race, gender, or ethnicity of the slave," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman.__How do you plan to observe the third-annual World Day Against Speciesism on June 5? The day is designed to remind people that speciesism, like racism and sexism, has no place in a civilized society. Prejudice toward animals is no more acceptable than prejudice toward humans.__Prejudice? If I assume a dog is less intelligent than a human, I'm a bad guy now? Or that cats are prone to scratch? Someone call the police and have me arrested, apparently I'm guilty of all kinds of discrimination. I refuse to sleep with the things, don't even let them eat at the same table, and won't hire them for jobs. No wonder my dog refuses to answer the phone and take messages when I'm out.

Sure, they stand for some good things(crazy amounts of animal cruelty in the world), but take it way beyond the limit of rationality, as was exampled on the Penn & Tellers Bullshiat(and rightly mentioned up thread).

These people are mentally deficient, but due to some kind people being fooled, are supported indefinitely.

It isn't necessarily a made-up statistic, but it is a misleading one. PETA takes in sick animals for free so people can afford to euthanize humanely (vets are expensive), and they offer the same service to animal shelters. They don't even run an adoption service. They refer the healthy animals to the animal shelters and take the unhealthy animals that the shelters will not take. All of this is in the VA inspection report, which I will conveniently link from the website of an industry lobbying group running the smear campaign.

ciberido:I fear we really are getting closer to the point where the animosity transforms into outright violence. I am reminded of anti-abortion activists who blow up medical clinics and shoot doctors in their own homes.

Theaetetus:ciberido: Theaetetus: Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.

That's an overgeneralization at best, though you do have a point.

Any time you have a Group B criticizing a common activity of Group A, many of the members of Group A will respond with defensive anger. You see this in so many Fark threads, whether the topic be abortion, eating meat, guns, homosexuality, or something else. And especially you will see a LOT of anger if prominent members of Group B act in ways which seem clearly hypocritical. Witness how people react, for example, when a prominent Conservative politician, known for anti-gay policies or rhetoric, is found out to have had a homosexual affair.

We don't like it when other people tell us our behavior is immoral. We get defensive and angry. And especially when the person condemning us is (or we believe them to be) hypocritical on that very issue.

Except that PETA's not actually being hypocritical here. And to further crush the analogy, the people criticizing PETA don't actually disagree with what they're doing. It'd be like finding out that the anti-gay politician secretly uses drugs, and then having a bunch of drug-users criticizing them. Or, even more aptly, like people who love eating meat and who fudge their tax deductions criticizing a vegan who cheats on their taxes.Hence why it's concern trolling: you disagree with the policy behind the organization, not this specific action... so being all "boo hoo, this specific action is awful!" is disingenuous.

Seriously, Theaetetus? Not hypocritical? You really want to go there? You DO know both Newkirk and Sweetland have type-I diabetes, right?

I'm just going to assume that you're having a bad day and didn't bother to Google before posting, because, in all sincerity, I have too much respect for you to think you're fully aware of what you're doing here.

ciberido:Theaetetus: ciberido: Theaetetus: Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.

That's an overgeneralization at best, though you do have a point.

Any time you have a Group B criticizing a common activity of Group A, many of the members of Group A will respond with defensive anger. You see this in so many Fark threads, whether the topic be abortion, eating meat, guns, homosexuality, or something else. And especially you will see a LOT of anger if prominent members of Group B act in ways which seem clearly hypocritical. Witness how people react, for example, when a prominent Conservative politician, known for anti-gay policies or rhetoric, is found out to have had a homosexual affair.

We don't like it when other people tell us our behavior is immoral. We get defensive and angry. And especially when the person condemning us is (or we believe them to be) hypocritical on that very issue.

Except that PETA's not actually being hypocritical here. And to further crush the analogy, the people criticizing PETA don't actually disagree with what they're doing. It'd be like finding out that the anti-gay politician secretly uses drugs, and then having a bunch of drug-users criticizing them. Or, even more aptly, like people who love eating meat and who fudge their tax deductions criticizing a vegan who cheats on their taxes.Hence why it's concern trolling: you disagree with the policy behind the organization, not this specific action... so being all "boo hoo, this specific action is awful!" is disingenuous.

Seriously, Theaetetus? Not hypocritical? You really want to go there? You DO know both Newkirk and Sweetland have type-I diabetes, right?

I'm just going to assume that you're having a bad day and did ...

I'm talking about the alleged hypocrisy of "PETA euthanizes animals! They're hypocrites!"Frankly, I agree with you about the importance of medical testing, and I'm also anti-PETA for their sexist campaigns. I think there are many good reasons to disagree with PETA, but the euthanizing one isn't it, and it's particularly disingenuous when that criticism comes from people who have no problem with euthanasia. It's like someone eating a burger while criticizing a vegetarian for not being vegan, with a "but what about the poor widdle eggs?!"

karmaceutical:nocturnal001: karmaceutical: nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.

I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.

Their basic philosophy is that animals have rights similar to or the same as humans.

When you claim you believe that, and spend your budget protesting other causes while killing animals that you could instead care for?

IMO Peta is a bad thing for animals all in all. Legitimate problems like poor care in some zoos (and I believe for any intelligent animals like dolphins) are ignored by the general public because of fringe behavior from these nut balls.

Those "protests" you keep railing on about don't cost PeTA money... they MAKE PeTA money. Do you think that PeTA would be a household name both here and abroad if not for these admittedly zany protests?

So again, how is it ok for them to have the opinion that animal life is sacred, and then to kill animals themselves just because they are too expensive to care for?

This would be like the Catholic church euthanizing orphan babies due to lack of funding while at the same time spending money trying to get folks to avoid premarital sex. Yeah, sure, if they were able to convince people to avoid premarital sex there would probably be fewer uncared for babies, but isn't that missing the point? PETAs supposed ultimate goal is to protect animals. By their standards of ethics, how is it ok to kill fluffy today in order to maybe save 2 rovers tomorrow?

From the PETA website. "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example. Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy. Now, you can say that they believe in the greater good (some animals are killed for lack of funding so we can save more in the long run). That would be an entirely defensible viewpoint, but it really contradicts their idea that animals have the same rights as humans.

So, it's ok to kill dogs and cats in order to free up money to run the rest of the PETA organization (greater good!), but it's NOT ok to kill some mice in order to save a large number of human lives. Right, that makes a lot of sense. Animals can be killed for the greater good of other animals, but animals can not be killed for the greater good of humans.

To the PETA defenders generally. This thread is a perfect demonstration that PETA is a failure as an organization. PETA is incredibly disliked, and because of that people that would support many of these efforts (more nuetering, better controls on zoos, limiting animal reserarch, caring for farm animals better) instead write off these concerns as being BS perpetuated by "those crazy folks at PETA".

Yeah, in many cases some of the euthanization guidelines that PETA recommends are not able to be done by people that actually find the animals or for wildlife rehab centers, etc that may have animals that have to be euthanized.

While I'm no fan of PETA's tactics, there's nothing wrong with euthanizing animals in a way that causes them the least amount of distress possible. Euthanizing animals is not outside their charter.

There is nothing sensational here, move along.

Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.

Have you ever been wrong in your life? When an organization uses guilt tactics to the degree peta does they don't get to be hypocrites. If they do what they chide others for they have instantly lost all credibility. You know, like David Suzuki. And you.

nocturnal001:From the PETA website. "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example. Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy.

That's the very definition of a strawman argument.1. PETA makes statement X "don't eat/wear/experiment on animals or use them for entertainment".2. You present it as statement Y "animals have same rights as humans".3. You attack PETA based on their lack of adherence to statement Y.

ciberido:DROxINxTHExWIND: meanmutton: DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.

No, they don't. They euthanize at a VASTLY, indefensibly higher rate than any legitimate shelter.

I don't really have a dog in this fight (no pun intended) but that sounds like a bullshiat, made-up, unsupported statistic.

Of course I have. But never to this degree: "When an organization uses guilt tactics to the degree peta does they don't get to be hypocrites. If they do what they chide others for they have instantly lost all credibility."

See, you (and others) are chiding PETA for doing something you have no problem with, which, by your own definition, means you've instantly lost all credibility. Thus, because of your post, we should disregard your post.

Theaetetus:nocturnal001: From the PETA website. "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example. Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy.

That's the very definition of a strawman argument.1. PETA makes statement X "don't eat/wear/experiment on animals or use them for entertainment".2. You present it as statement Y "animals have same rights as humans".3. You attack PETA based on their lack of adherence to statement Y.

Well, it would be a strawman if they didn't believe that. You are either being disingenuous or naive if you think they don't believe that. If animals can't be owned, killed, abused, etc. by humans then doesn't that exactly mean they have the same rights? It does, yes. PETA's wording could be swapping into the Decleration of Independence and the original meaning would be unchanged.

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/why-animal-rights.aspxSupporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."

theaetetusthat's just how I've posted here for years, but I do get it.

PETA has done a bad job for a long long time. You overlook that they support bad people who are burning things and blowing things upthey have been killing critters for yearsIt's a cult, not helpful portion of society

Are you just trolling or are you a sycophant?In the wake of facts that dispel the belief in this system that you are backing on farkwhy is your opinion the same?

nocturnal001:So, it's ok to kill dogs and cats in order to free up money to run the rest of the PETA organization (greater good!), but it's NOT ok to kill some mice in order to save a large number of human lives. Right, that makes a lot of sense. Animals can be killed for the greater good of other animals, but animals can not be killed for the greater good of humans.

To the PETA defenders generally. This thread is a perfect demonstration that PETA is a failure as an organization. PETA is incredibly disliked, and because of that people that would support many of these efforts (more nuetering, better controls on zoos, limiting animal reserarch, caring for farm animals better) instead write off these concerns as being BS perpetuated by "those crazy folks at PETA".

Actually, this thread is a perfect demonstration that PETA is disliked mostly due to ignorance. You are completely wrong about what you are accusing them of when you say they are killing animals to free up money. They offer the service to pet owners for free. It COSTS them money to kill these animals. The intent is to provide humane euthanasia to people who can't afford to take their dying pet to the vet (or for animal shelters that gas/shoot animals). They don't run an adoption service. As far as animal testing, they are trying to bring our practices more in like with Canada and the EU. You miss the whole point. We should be moving away from animal testing wherever possible. They support non-animal testing and other research, not just letting people die in the street. You are taking their position to a non-existent extreme.

On the other hand, PETA does a lot of dumb things that hurt their image, like comparing slaughterhouses to the Holocaust. Stick to the boobies and the issues, guys.

nocturnal001:Theaetetus: nocturnal001: From the PETA website. "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example. Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy.

That's the very definition of a strawman argument.1. PETA makes statement X "don't eat/wear/experiment on animals or use them for entertainment".2. You present it as statement Y "animals have same rights as humans".3. You attack PETA based on their lack of adherence to statement Y.

Well, it would be a strawman if they didn't believe that. You are either being disingenuous or naive if you think they don't believe that. If animals can't be owned, killed, abused, etc. by humans then doesn't that exactly mean they have the same rights? It does, yes. PETA's wording could be swapping into the Decleration of Independence and the original meaning would be unchanged.

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/why-animal-rights.aspxSupporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."

Doubling down on your strawman still doesn't mean it's what PETA believes.Look, if you can't argue using their actual words, and instead have to create some "animals have the same rights as humans" derp, then you have to expect some pushback.

natas6.0:theaetetusthat's just how I've posted here for years, but I do get it.

PETA has done a bad job for a long long time. You overlook that they support bad people who are burning things and blowing things upthey have been killing critters for yearsIt's a cult, not helpful portion of society

Are you just trolling or are you a sycophant?In the wake of facts that dispel the belief in this system that you are backing on farkwhy is your opinion the same?

cousin-merle:They refer the healthy animals to the animal shelters and take the unhealthy animals that the shelters will not take. All of this is in the VA inspection report, which I will conveniently link from the website of an industry lobbying group running the smear campaign.

Except they don't. They take every single animal they can, pressure you to give them animals you don't want to give, and kill almost every single one of them, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

You're reading the defense's accounts and ignoring any motivation they have to lie.

rnatalie:They have to euthanize them immediately, they in fact have next to NO capacity to house animals.

[citation needed]

I'm not saying you're wrong because I, personally, have no idea what their capacity is or isn't, but considering that the only reason this stupid "issue" ever seems to get out is because their commercial enemies publicize it to make them look bad for purely selfish reasons, I'm not just going to accept any and every claim made.

I'm largely indifferent to PETA, unlike the tons of whiners on Fark who seem compelled to take exception to every single thing they do just because, but I've seen this claim leveled over and over throughout the years and it has never passed the smell test when you actually start digging into the details. The sources are usually bullshiat, the context is always completely missing and there's never any comparative data offered.

PETA may not keep capacity for long term housing but that's not uncommon and painless euthanasia is still a damn sight better (and more ethical) than just letting some scumbag pet owner abandon an animal in his old house until it starves to death when the bank takes it and he has to go live in some slum apartment that doesn't allow pets.

And, again, PETA accepts anything. You don't keep housing if a lot of your animals are coming in are on their last legs with various diseases or too far wasted away to survive. You put them out of their misery quickly.

Theaetetus:I think there are many good reasons to disagree with PETA, but the euthanizing one isn't it, and it's particularly disingenuous when that criticism comes from people who have no problem with euthanasia. It's like someone eating a burger while criticizing a vegetarian for not being vegan, with a "but what about the poor widdle eggs?!"

I get so sick of this shiat as a vegetarian. They are just looking for fault in other people to justify their own ideology.

"Ha ha! You are not perfect as a vegetarian because a combine harvester can kill field mice! Therefore, it is totally okay for me to eat the same vegetables as you on top of the pile of meat from an animal that was treated inhumanely before being intentionally killed!"

Such lazy reasoning to make no effort to better the world around us. Unfortunately, it is pretty popular for opposing any eco cause, like renewable energy (a bird died once hitting a windmill so let's just keep burning coal!).

Mr Guy:Except they don't. They take every single animal they can, pressure you to give them animals you don't want to give, and kill almost every single one of them, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

You're reading the defense's accounts and ignoring any motivation they have to lie.

I'm reading the state of Virginia's inspection report posted on petakillsanimals.com, and the inspector agrees with the defense, but feel free to attack the source and make up whatever you want. If they were doing what you said, wouldn't they be killing more than ~2,000 of the 90,000+ pets euthanized in Virginia each year?

Yeah man, PeTA has been canvassing down here for years. They send over the topless girls to go door to door and round up all these cats for them to gently kill. I didn't want to give them any, but they were so persistent I gave them a cat and one turtle. That is probably where the "misc" category comes from in their kill factories. I though they were gone but just like the Nazi's at NPR, they come back now that they know I am a "supporter." "Mr. Ceutical, we're counting on you for 3 cats and a hamster this year!" I had to throw a tablecloth over my aquarium so they wouldn't see my awesome collection on sea kittens. I'm sure those small breasted ladies would have loved to get their resin stained fingers on those beauties.

cousin-merle:Mr Guy: Except they don't. They take every single animal they can, pressure you to give them animals you don't want to give, and kill almost every single one of them, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

You're reading the defense's accounts and ignoring any motivation they have to lie.

I'm reading the state of Virginia's inspection report posted on petakillsanimals.com, and the inspector agrees with the defense, but feel free to attack the source and make up whatever you want. If they were doing what you said, wouldn't they be killing more than ~2,000 of the 90,000+ pets euthanized in Virginia each year?

Reread your single inspection report. It says absolutely nothing about whether or not it's true that all the animals they kill were unadoptable. It says that's what the receptionist claims, and the inspector agrees with her that they clearly kill every animal they get, because there's no facilities to store them. The finding of the inspector is that they don't count as an animal shelter because they are, in fact, an animal execution location.He then goes on to use numbers to demonstrate that, proving that over the last six years, they USED to try to transfer a small number of animals, but in the last couple years, they are down to 16 of 2,301 animals. He's saying they declare 99% of animals they see to be unadoptable, with no proof what so ever, and promptly execute them.

Now it's your turn to provide any evidence that they actually have any higher percentage of injured, infirm, or socially maladjusted animals than anyone else. You need to provide some evidence that they manage to select only unadoptable animals and not keep any records of all the animals they claim to transfer, but the inspector found they didn't. You need to prove that 16 animals is even remotely reasonable as the correct number of animals that were salvageable, when every comparison against shelters that have more funding and more community presence shows there should be more adoptable animals that animals that need to be put down, and yet the consistently manage to kill 99% of the animals they see. They claim to have records of all these transfers showing they don't kill everything, but their records turned out to be 16 dogs or cats compared to 2,301 they killed.

ciberido:me texan: While I'm no fan of PETA's tactics, there's nothing wrong with euthanizing animals in a way that causes them the least amount of distress possible. Euthanizing animals is not outside their charter.

There is nothing sensational here, move along.

Theaetetus: Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.

That's an overgeneralization at best, though you do have a point.

Any time you have a Group B criticizing a common activity of Group A, many of the members of Group A will respond with defensive anger. You see this in so many Fark threads, whether the topic be abortion, eating meat, guns, homosexuality, or something else. And especially you will see a LOT of anger if prominent members of Group B act in ways which seem clearly hypocritical. Witness how people react, for example, when a prominent Conservative politician, known for anti-gay policies or rhetoric, is found out to have had a homosexual affair.

We don't like it when other people tell us our behavior is immoral. We get defensive and angry. And especially when the person condemning us is (or we believe them to be) hypocritical on that very issue.

That alone is sufficient to explain a lot of the anger against PETA. But there are other reasons. I won't even try to list them all, but I will give my own personal favorite: animal testing.

As you know, PETA is infamously opposed to ALL animal testing, no matter what medical breakthrough might arise from it. And, I'll admit that this position is consistent with the premise that an animal's life is every bit as valuable as a human's. But it leads to vast amounts of suffering and death for humans. It's one thing to say, "You shouldn't wear fur" or "You shouldn't eat meat" for th ...

You have also just condemned the banning of DDT simply because it thinned the shells of one species of bird. How many millions have died from malaria unnecesarily because of that disgusting woman that guilted the American public into banning it? I hear she has been called the mother of the green movement and was killed under mysterious circumstances. Insert picture of Tardar Sauce saying "good"

/I feel dirty knowing we agree on something//nice to see you can express yourself without being a douche on occasion

Mr Guy:Reread your single inspection report. It says absolutely nothing about whether or not it's true that all the animals they kill were unadoptable. It says that's what the receptionist claims, and the inspector agrees with her that they clearly kill every animal they get, because there's no facilities to store them. The finding of the inspector is that they don't count as an animal shelter because they are, in fact, an animal execution location.He then goes on to use numbers to demonstrate that, proving that over the last six years, they USED to try to transfer a small number of animals, but in the last couple years, they are down to 16 of 2,301 animals. He's saying they declare 99% of animals they see to be unadoptable, with no proof what so ever, and promptly execute them.

Now it's your turn to provide any evidence that they actually have any higher percentage of injured, infirm, or socially maladjusted animals than anyone else

. You need to prove that 16 animals is even remotely reasonable as the correct number of animals that were salvageable, when every comparison against shelters that have more funding and more community presence shows there should be more adoptable animals that animals that need to be put down, and yet the consistently manage to kill 99% of the animals they see. They claim to have records of all these transfers showing they don't kill everything, but their records turned out to be 16 dogs or cats compared to 2,301 they killed.

Yes, the inspector is saying they aren't an adoption facility, just like they claim. They offer free euthanasia service, not adoption service, and the vast majority of the animals they take in are surrendered by owner. Of course the animals are killed; that is exactly the point. They will take in any suffering animal and put it down for free. My first dog had to be euthanized for a cochlear infection (my parents paid for the vet to do it). He looked totally normal and healthy though.

If you go look at all other facilities, only about 1/3 are surrendered by owner. I know the Humane Society by me won't take any animal, but I do not have a list of all the animals given to both PETA/other facilities in the state of Virginia and their CARFAX reports to determine which were the healthy ones.

PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675 for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.

Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor.

Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.

PETA is failing in this. Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.

If you subtract out PETA from the statewide humane societies you get the following:8949-1675: 7274 total taken in2519-1675: 644 killed

644/7274 = 8.85%All humane societies in VA, excluding PETA, have a combined 8.85% euthanization rate.Only when including PETA with their high rate and large numbers does it jump all the way to 28%.

shiat, it was supposed to be 8949-1875: 7074 total taken in644/7074 = 9.14%

Your numbers are still wrong. In 2011 (the 2012 numbers on VDACS are wonky and 2011 is more typical), statewide, 53,634/111,131 = 48.3% of cats were euthanized and 31,071/125,787 = 24.7% of dogs were euthanized. Of course, when you consider that PETA specifically takes in sick animals, for free, so people can afford a humane death for their pet instead of going to the vet, the PETA numbers don't look so bad. They don't even run a public adoption service. This whole thing is a smear campaign based on a false premise run by an industry lobbying group.

My numbers weren't wrong. I was comparing them to other humane groups. You're comparing their numbers against a stat that rolls in city and county run animal controls depts. So what's PETA's purpose? Their %euthanization and %adoption rates are worse than the county and city animal controls. Compared to other humane groups (which in 2011, all other humane groups only euthanized at 19% compared to PETA's 96%) they're vastly inferior. Compared to rescue groups their rates are vastly inferior. Compared to everyone their adoption and euthanization rates are vastly inferior.

If their rates are so poor, why do they do it? They're certainly not helping the animals out. You assert it's because they take in animals who are sick, thus they have to euthanize more of them. I would wager that the county and city run animal control depts are perfectly capable of euthanizing the sick animals. Also, I can't imagine that 80% of the animals they take in are near-death (to account for the 80% euthanization difference). So your "they take in more sick animals" argument isn't really persuasive. Your comment regarding the smear campaign is also unpersuasive, as the source being cited is Virginia DACS.

Theaetetus:nocturnal001: Theaetetus: nocturnal001: From the PETA website. "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example. Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy.

That's the very definition of a strawman argument.1. PETA makes statement X "don't eat/wear/experiment on animals or use them for entertainment".2. You present it as statement Y "animals have same rights as humans".3. You attack PETA based on their lack of adherence to statement Y.

Well, it would be a strawman if they didn't believe that. You are either being disingenuous or naive if you think they don't believe that. If animals can't be owned, killed, abused, etc. by humans then doesn't that exactly mean they have the same rights? It does, yes. PETA's wording could be swapping into the Decleration of Independence and the original meaning would be unchanged.

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/why-animal-rights.aspxSupporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."

Doubling down on your strawman still doesn't mean it's what PETA believes.Look, if you can't argue using their actual words, and instead have to create some "animals have the same rights as humans" derp, then you have to expect some pushback.

So their actual words that I posted don't mean exactly what I have said? Do we need to have a semantics debate?

Its pretty clear unless you are just arguing to rile people up.

They clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of right to not be hurt, killed etc. They object to harming animals to save human lives, but also dont mind killing animals to save money for other projects.

You are right. Technically they are not hypocrites. However their philosophy is not logically consistent and probably immoral by most measures.

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?

Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters. They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters. Not all organizations do that.

From the statistics: On hand number of animals on-hand December 31st: ONE. That's right, come December first they had 'gotten rid of' every single animal in the shelter but one. And at the start of the previous year, how many animals did they have on hand? TWO.In a shelter that put down an average of four and a half animals a day, they have ONE animal, a single dog, available for adoption.Go to any other shelter, even a small one in a small town, and they'll have at least a dozen available. PETA? ONE.

cousin-merle:If you go look at all other facilities, only about 1/3 are surrendered by owner. I know the Humane Society by me won't take any animal, but I do not have a list of all the animals given to both PETA/other facilities in the state of Virginia and their CARFAX reports to determine which were the healthy ones.

Ok, so that may be enough to help their numbers if they were only 30 to 50% higher in their rates. Their rates are so much higher they don't even make sense to compare. They kill about 130 animals for every animal they lives, compared to the state average that's close to 1 to 1, according to that inspection report. Even granting them that they deliberate take hard cases, they are claiming to justifiably kill 10% of all animals killed by shelters in Virginia. That one shelter kills 1 in 10 animals euthanized in Virginia, which may be okay if Virginia was the size of Rhode Island, but there's more than 10 other shelters that are offering the exact same services as PETA claims to provide with radically different results just in Norfolk, where this kill center is located.

I know you really want to believe it's just a fall out of the numbers because they take on hard cases, but it's a lie. Their numbers reflect their view that no one should raise animals in their home, if it can at all be avoided.

That's because it isn't a shelter and doesn't say it is, except when fund raising. It's a kill center, and they claim no one brings healthy animals to them because everyone knows they will kill them. Only they spin this like a good thing.